In Douglas J. Del Tondos book 'Jesus' words only': Douglas states on Pg. 395 of his book;

“this notion that Jesus brought a new covenant-of -Grace which excludes repentance from sin for salvation comes exclusively from Paul.”

Yet, Everything in ancient, modern and mainstream Christianity is heavily stated as a Faith that says ‘Repent and believe for the forgiveness of your sins’. How anyone could possibly say that repentance was removed from Christian Theology is living in another dimension. “Repent and believe”, ‘is’ Christian Theology. Douglas’ assertions boggle the mind. It may be true that humans don’t want to believe, but you can’t blame any biblical writer for that, in fact that’s the point, humans do not want to repent. That is what Romans chapter one and two are all about, 2:1 ‘…for you who pass judgment condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.’ And as John says in John chap.1 and Jesus states in John 3:19-21 “… Men loved the darkness rather than the light, lest his (their) deeds be exposed.” as Paul (Romans 3:17-18) reminds us of David’s words, and states “… All have turned aside, together they have become useless…there is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Paul ‘does’ make repentance a prerequisite and necessity to salvation, ‘turning from sin’ is to repent. Over half the content of Paul’s letters are admonitions and warnings to flee from sin. You may also note Luke’s witness of Paul’s lecture in Acts 20:21, 26:19. Douglas is very naive in his judgments, Jesus does not mention repentance very often, the ‘concept’ does not need to to be repeated over and over, because repentance is a response to the convictions that come from the ‘details’, not from the ‘command’. In John Chap.1:12-17, 3:1-20, 4:10-14, 5:24, 5:33-47, 6:28-58, 7:37-39, 10:9, 27, 11:25-26, etc…Jesus talks of eternal life over and over and does not mention repentance, do you think He then should be torn out of the Bible, or was he just deceived also, or did someone change his words.
All the prophets talk of repentance before forgiveness, without necessarily using the word 'repent'. But with that being said, the statement can then be made to “call out to God and He will rescue you”, hear you, or forgive you, etc. and the writer does not have to repeat everything he has just said earlier. The Prophets expect that you have been listening and paying attention all along so that they need not repeat themselves, but as humans quickly forget, the writers knew this, Jesus too, hence the so common repeating and repetition in narratives. And note; Jesus did commonly heal people without the phrase “do you repent of your sins?”, nor even “because of your good works I will heal you” He heals those who ask Him, God heals us, we do not heal ourselves. We are sick with sin, and God will heal us, ‘When we ask’. As the serpent on the stick was raised up in the wilderness as a reminder and symbol of our transgressions and sin, so Christ being lifted up on the Cross is the witness against us. Note that Joshua and Moses said the ‘Law’ was a witness against us. (Deuteronomy 31:19,26 and Joshua 24:27). Now read Joshua 24:19-28, the people promised to follow all the laws of God and to serve Him. O.K., fine, good luck! Joshua Himself knew like Moses this was hopeless. Now turn two pages and see how well they keep their promise to God. Read Judges 2:11, 2:18-21, then again Judges 3:12-14, then they cried again to the Lord 3:15 and God himself again sends them a deliverer, (note, when they cry-out to God he saves them, usually), then again Judges 6:1, “Then the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” This is the pattern over and over and over all the way from Genesis to Malachi. God forgives, we sin. God forgives, we sin. God forgives, we sin. If this is not true in your life, then we indeed may have to worship you, but let everyman be a liar and God be true, for whoever says he is without sin calls God a liar (1 John 1:8-10) and if anyone sins we have an advocate 1John 2:1-6. Douglas ignores the Old Testament admonition and new covenant promise (Jeremiah 31-33) to circumcise your hearts (do a word search on circumcise your heart), as done for us in Christ’s death on the cross, God circumcises our hearts, when we are put to death, or born again (you must ‘die’ first to be born again), to cut off the flesh is the biblical practice and symbolic gesture of circumcising the heart, and this speaks of death which is the only way to prevent a man from sinning.
And so Jesus and writers of the New Testament go beyond simply repentance, unto the death of self. As God has promised all along ‘sin must be put to death in the flesh’, hence Christ’s death , the death of all the millions of lambs and oxen, the blood on the door posts, all speak of the judgment on flesh. Therefore the New Testament focus and metaphor of not only repentance, but death. So as Paul goes over and over the need to put to death the deeds of the flesh. (Romans Chap.6… Colossians 3:3-11…) and as Peter says in 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18.Those who love his ways, his judgments and love, his sacrifice of love for us, those who love these things love Him; therefore we want to please him and seek his companionship, for he loves us. We now seek Him in love, not out of fear, nor for reward as in the Law, but we keep the Law out of love. The perfect Law of Liberty that James speaks of in James 2:12. And the cross proves the greatness of his love and it proves the greatness of our sins all at once.

Back to Douglas' statement on Pg. 395, "this notion that Jesus brought a new covenant-of -Grace..." Douglas does not seem to realize that the 'New Covenant' was of Grace. And although the old covenant did incorporate grace, it did not have the 'power' to change the worshipper. The old covenant was based on our flesh and ability to keep the Law. It also depended on the flesh and blood of bulls and goats for forgiveness, thus it lacked the power to save, for only God has the power to save, and "His own right arm brought salvation to Him"
Jesus told us "not one dot or iota would disappear from the Law till all was fullfilled" Well Jesus eliminated the Priests by offering 'Himself'. He eliminated the Temple by being offered 'outside' the gates of the city and the temple. Jesus fullfilled the Law!
What no one ever did, or could, He did. "It is finished" Jesus said on the Cross, 'these' are Jesus' words, we must heed 'all' of Jesus Words. We did not come to fulfill the law ( )and to fullfill all righteousness ( ). No one else could have said it is finished. No where in the Law is a human sacrifice required for our forgiveness, yet Jesus was the son of man. God was not obligated to offer a sacrifice according to Law, but God offered His own Lamb for 'our' sins. Nothing in the Law about God having to sacrifice for our sins.
Simply put; Douglas is saying we must keep the ‘Law’ in order to be ‘saved’ by God. And anyone teaching otherwise would be guilty of being a ‘Law breaker’(Douglas is referring to the Law of Moses, the First, or ‘Old Testament’) I would like to ask Douglas a simple question. (Since Douglas refers to the four Gospels as ‘Gospels’, and the word Gospel means 'good news')'Why' is it called the Good News?
The inference is that it is good, and that it is news! Nobody refers to the Old Testament as the ‘Good News’, why is that? If Douglas would simply ponder this for a moment then he could understand and this debate would be over.
May you be blessed, John and Gina